Man in dress and funny hat says gender equality is biggest threat to civilization in all human history.

Mithra help us all! Cardinal Cañizares of Valencia, sporting his white muumuu and a hat which doubles as a lightning rod, has been bestowing his senility on anyone willing to listen. His current bugbears are the supposed “Gay Empire” and the epic dangers of gender equality. How tiresome. If a god really existed, that very heavy silver crucifix behind him would have fallen over the imbecile’s head and saved the world from listening to this garbage.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

114 comments on “Man in dress and funny hat says gender equality is biggest threat to civilization in all human history.”

Well yeah, that’s what I don’t get…this Cardinal is a man, wearing a muumuu (you can call it a kaftan if you want, but it’s basically a big white dress) and he’s got a fancy hat to go with his dress (also his purse is made of solid gold & has lovely theatrical smoke coming out of it) & he’s talking about how “men should behave like men”? This guy’s a wig choice away from being Lady Gaga, has he looked at himself in a mirror, ever?

shucks, SOM, you certainly are concerned when it’s your silly religion being called on the carpet for what it claims. Funny how you have no problem in criticizing other religions as yours is being criticized.

Then if you are so concerned, you should be able to give some examples. And do remember, SOM, that pointing how someone fails with evidence isn’t bigotry.

Hmmm, your silly religion has had how many religious wars? Has how many new sects, all claiming that the other sects are wrong? a religion that can’t agree on what its god wants or can show that its god exists at all?

That’s not a great track record for a religion supposedly taking care of itself. And one would wonder why you would defend it if your claim that it doesn’t need your concern is true.

Where, SOM? Where are these examples that you claim? Surely you can cut and paste, right?

Or is this one more example of you trying to throw shit at a wall and hoping some of it sticks? You always seem to need to have someone else do your work for you, and when they don’t, your claims fail as usual. I’m waiting. IF there is nothing, we have one more TrueChristian bearing false witness and showing us that he has no more interest in following his bible than I am.

From my own experience I’d just note that having a discussion with SOM is somewhat pointless 😉
He/She can’t understand the most basic of logical/mathematical formulas; when that’s the case it’s just a waste of time. You can spend three hours laying out evidence only to be confronted with something like “the sky is blue because bunnies have tails and so people who read books are evil.”

of course it’s pointless. But it’s always worth showing that theists and their religions aren’t what they want people to believe. Christians like SOM are great examples to be able to show that Christians are reliant on deceit, ignorance and fear. There is nothing to be respected about them.

It’s grand to see you claim that if one doesn’t “respect” someone its bigotry. Funny how this isn’t what bigotry is at all. SOM, you might want to find a dictionary.

I also love your attempts to try to tell people to sit down and shut up if you don’t like what they say, no matter how true it is. As for hypocrisy, you also might want to take a look at the definition of bigotry so we can look at your posts to see how you have treated others.

It was his reasoning – ‘they’ aren’t manly enough, you see – that people are pointing out… that he failed to notice his own glaring hypocrisy. Strike two

As a man in a religious position of leadership whose faith supposedly provides an elevated position on morality and ethics, he is an absolute failure yet has been advanced through the organization in spite (or because) of demonstrated adherence to bigotry, hypocrisy, and immorality. Strike three.

Pointing this stuff out is not bigotry, SoM; as I said, it’s an honest and accurate assessment of the man’s pathetic character.

I like lots of Catholics. In fact, I have yet to meet a bad Catholic I didn’t like. It’s the good ones like this pompous and blatantly hypocritical ass who deserve correct identification. He’s not a bigot because he doesn’t like this gay or that one; he’s a bigot because he doesn’t like ANY of them based solely on the group label and the values he attaches to how he defines them. That makes him a bigot, SoM. Criticizing such na pompous hypocritical bigot is not bigotry; he richly deserves not mewling excuses that you pour forth but honest criticism for his bigotry for his hypocrisy, for his ignorance.

Let me clarify how freedom works… The cardinal gets to *feel* and say what he wants- and then everyone else gets to do the same!!! What you’re doing is supporting his freedom whilst attempting to curtail the freedom of anyone who disagrees with him.

This always amuses me. Theists and right wing nuts frequently point to their right to be bigots, but the moment someone talks back to them they start crying.
It’s always: Waaaah, you’re oppressing my free speech by calling out my bigotry and hypocrisy”.

SoM, I’ve pointed out that you’re badly confused and you demonstrate this again and again when you first claim bigotry by the atheist for criticizing a man’s terrible reasoning for his bigoted statements and then ad hominum for pointing out why the reasoning employed by the man is hypocritical: he’s claiming his bigotry is justified without appreciating that the very qualities he’s using against others (as a group) are the same ones he’s using (personally) to justify his own.

Cardinal Canizares is being a horrible blowhard when he says gay activism is the greatest threat in the history of humanity.
But nota bene that he says gay activism is a threat and he is then promptly threatened by gay activists, so he is at least partly correct.

He was threatened with criminal charges and the resulting court hearings, lawyers fees and bad press (the punishment implicit in the process) for making a historically illiterate statement. The purpose of such a threat is to control the public expression of opinion.
I just skimmed the article, but I did not see him “denying your right to exist”.

That’s where you’re wrong. Once any collective of people is labelled “evil” (in this case based on behaviour that has no bearing on ethics)- then there’s only one path to be followed: marginalization/exclusion/elimination. That’s the logical formula. Not “they’re evil so let’s live side by side with them in peace.”- not “they’re evil so let’s protect their rights as citizens.”
As for Spanish law, well, it’s the law. Inciting hatred is a crime. It was a crime when an Imam said it was appropriate to beat one’s wife. It was a crime when a protester threatened a priest in Madrid, and it’s a crime when hatred is incited against gay people.

You are conflating a few different things.
1. Canizares was talking about an “imperio homosexual” which I think refers to an ideological movement of activist groups who have quite a bit of clout with businesses and government. This movement is what he (ridiculously) identifies as being a the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, and a body within this movement (ironically) threatened him with legal action in order to shut him up.
2. I suspect Canizares was formed by standard Catholic moral theology which teaches that some acts are always objectively sinful, but which has never taught that some persons are inherently evil. The accusation that the church teaches that “gays are evil” is caricature, but it is a useful caricature insofar as it enables the sorts of legal action described above.
3. However, you are right that in a thoroughly Christian culture, homosexual subculture will always be marginal. I don’t mean poor, sometimes quite the opposite, but kept quiet and on the edge of public consciousness, and somewhat precarious when it tries to be anything but private.

Caricature?
When Ratzinger visited Portugal while he was pope he said that stopping *homosexual conduct* was more important than saving the rainforest(s). The cardinal of Santo Domingo (in 2010) said gays were trying to “exterminate humanity”. The archbishop of Brussels, Andre-Joseph Leonard, said Aids was an “act of justice”.
So do tell me where the caricature is? All of those statements are matches to gunpowder. It’s screaming fire in a crowded theatre.

-and just so we’re super clear, there’s no conflation. I’m talking about a logical progression, and cause and effect. If someone tells you about their financial woes, it’s likely the next step is going to be to ask you for money/help. Historically, when any group has made the move to vilify another (on these terms), it was designed to elicit a reaction. From the many Jewish expulsions to Rwanda, to Serbia, to the anti-gay witch hunts in Uganda- they all follow this logical formula.

Oh please. I’m very doubtful J. Ratzinger would talk that way, as for the others I have no idea who they are. At any rate we are not talking about eliminationist rhetoric against individuals, but histrionics about a political movement.
When has the catholic church ever displayed exterminationist tendencies towards homosexuals? Especially considering that catholic clergy are disproportionately gay? How does “homosexual acts are objectively sinful” add up to “homosexuals must be eliminated”? Would the church do the same with other objectively sinful acts, like onanists and pornographers?
Comparing what homosexuals have historically suffered in Christian countries – marginalization and a degree of insecurity – to what Jews suffered – is a bit silly.

Ooo… here comes the Catholic apologentsia in the form of dpmonahan where criticizing bigotry and hypocrisy embedded in Catholic theology and expressed by its leadership isn’t so bad, really… and it’s sort of excusable because it’s Catholic, you see. What isn’t excusable… well, it is sorta, kinda, if it’s done just so and to the approval of the apologentsia – is publicly criticizing it. That’s a step too far.

I mean, the Vatican warmly welcomes gays and lesbians into its ecclesiastical leadership ranks… you know, all those openly gay and lesbian priests and so on…. oh, wait a sec… gender boundaries… right. Still, gay priests abound, everyone knows, and they especially receive a warm welcome in places like Kenya and other locales where the Word about it’s okay being gay must be spread… I’m pretty sure that’s how they voted during the last ecumenical council… love and respect for gays in Church-sanctioned marriages, gays raising good Catholic children, teaching them about safe sex and without bias towards others of different sexual preferences… yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what they decided.

I mean, the Vatican warmly welcomes pedophiles into its ecclesiastical leadership ranks, so why not gays… with as much fanfare, pomp, and special dresses, not to mention unlimited funding… including the funding of an international Catholic smuggling ring that shifts priests away from local authorities after raping children in their care and across international boundaries to avoid messy criminal trials and having to pay reparations for crimes committed. Seriously, the Church’s love and respect for gays is beyond question… oh, wait a sec…

The takeaway? Pedophiles okay, gays… not so much, unless they remain closeted, have no children, and do not participate in a sexual life.

The assertion that the teaching “behavior X is sinful” must mean that “all who practice behavior X are inhuman and must be eliminated” is not only false, it is designed to trick idiots into getting riled up.
But you seem to believe it. I hate to inform you then that the church also teaches that masturbation is a sin, in which case you must be the church’s number one target for liquidation.

The Church doesn’t leave ‘homosexuality as a sin’ alone, though, does it? Like the good Cardinal has done, the Church condemns it actively, accuses those who seek equality in law to be part of a global conspiracy and blames this conspiracy for funding those who fight for equality in law. This nothing new for this risible organization called the Catholic Church and its totalitarian leadership who seeks legal dominance over human sexuality. At least this ‘idiot’ sees the hypocrisy of defrocking and excommunicating priests who defy the ‘heresy’ of questioning the immorality of homosexuality but cannot find it in their dogma to deny Cardinal Pell sanctuary from his execrable and decades long handling of sexual abuse under his care.

Of course, like any halfwit Catholic apologist, you’ll rationalize away the significant and determined impediment the Church and its leadership provides from attaining equality legal rights and respect for the dignity of personhood for all in many different arenas that it assumes it should have some controlling position. This is what the Church does. its reason d’etre. And it causes a huge and unnecessary amount of very intentional suffering when the position is acted upon by well-meaning pious people. This suffering is what you are rationalizing and trying to shift responsibility and blame on to the victims. This is Catholicism in action. This suffering is what you trying to excuse. This suffering is part of the Catholic legacy that you are apologizing for yet haven’t the required intellectual integrity to condemn and defy.

In this sense, I would much prefer to be called an idiot for doing what’s right than a half-wit for doing what’s wrong.

I don’t recall hearing bishops arguing gays do not have the right to vote, right to fair trial, or even have the right to marry members of the opposite sex, just not members of the same sex, because to their mind (and to be fair, the mind of everybody throughout human history until about 2008) this is not marriage. If you had the least bit of mental flexibility you could see that, but it feels so much better to create boogey men, doesn’t it.
Again, I don’t find the histrionics of Canizares convincing, surely the black plague or communism were greater threats to civilization than gay marriage. Then again, judging from your histrionics, bile, hatred and eagerness to be fooled, maybe he is right to be afraid of the social trends?

Not convincing? Try living in central Africa and see how the Church augments and foments just such intolerance leading to the death of many… for no other reason than they are identified as gay.

According to your argument, there was nothing wrong with slavery, nothing wrong with burning a few witches, nothing wrong with claiming AIDS to be a ‘gay’ disease as long as lots of people went along with it… until some of us broke through the popular and religiously supported bigotry and began to sway people with the Enlightenment values of legal equality and dignity of personhood. We as a civilization reached a higher level of moral and ethical behaviour by leaving such practices – and the language that supported it – behind. And this was accomplished not because of but in spite of religiously endorsed bigotry and discrimination.

But, as anyone can see in this thread with you, the battle continues. And it continues because people like you don’t come out and fully condemn such religiously inspired bigotry and intolerance but excuse it and make apologies for it without doing your part to change it. Those who do not condemn it are at best tacitly supporting it. And that change begins by first recognizing that bigotry and discrimination – especially on religious grounds – are a significant negative and pernicious legacy to be overcome by each of us and that requires taking a principled and not a mewling, submissive stance.. even one that makes you uncomfortable.

Totalitarianism in any form begins with just such a submission to some Dear Leader, targeting some minority group and classifying them as a blameworthy enemy. What this Cardinal does is exactly this. Why you don’t recognize the inherent danger not forcefully and publicly criticizing and condemning these really bad ideas is a reflection on you and not an overstatement by anyone who recognizes it and dares to say as much.

LOL. O my God are you full of yourself. I’m killing time on a slow day at work, you are an child of the light smiting the armies of darkness hip and thigh.
So if the Church is such a scourge on humanity, would you say that the Spanish or U.S. government would be justified in prosecuting people who teach that “homosexual acts are objectively immoral”?

I’m for the prosecution of anyone who incites the hatred of fellow citizens.
Homosexuality has no relation to morality, hence teaching that it does is nothing but a technique in otherization, as would be teaching that people who can read latin are immoral.

Well, I find these countries deplorable in their obsequious privileging of bigotry. So much for any moral backbone.

Here in Canada we have legal penalties (but highly selective enforcement) for advocating for such bigotry. This usually falls under hate crime legislation and Protestants are particularly vulnerable. The Catholics, in stark contrast, are especially privileged with public financing, of course, and even though court case rulings demand their compliance to the law, publicly funded Catholic schools continue to flaunt these rulings and refuse to stop teaching such bigotry. Of course, the Church leadership claims this refusal to be a moral and not a legal issue and so therefore the Church’s bigotry is actually a virtue. Good Catholics and befuddled people nod their heads in timed agreement.

Am I in favour of such privilege? No. Prosecution? Yes. Persecution, no. People can hold whatever bigoted and discriminatory views they wish in the private domain but promoting them in the public domain is a crime. It’s a crime to implement bigotry in any public policy that involves equality law, that undermines equality civil rights, policies like bigoted Catholic policies in the schools, in hospitals, in employment conditions. The Church mandated bigotry in the public domain should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

They should be allowed to teach it in context.
There’s a difference between an Imam saying he believes women should wear veils because of modesty… or an Imam saying women who don’t wear veils are evil temptresses who subvert the natural order. In the second case he’s inviting punishment and exclusion.
The first case is a suggestion, the second incites a reaction.

Even if the imam says the latter, there is only a reaction if his hearers understand that to mean “she must be punished, and the person to preform the punishment is you, young Arab, with acid attacks and gang-rapes.” Same words to a different audience would have a different reaction. Perhaps Indonesian Muslims would hear “you, young Muslim, must be a better example to the wicked temptress who is subverting the natural order.”
I’m not sure I want the government deciding such nuances of language.

It’s not a nuance; that’s why we have laws that differentiate between the two things. Incitement is egging on, it’s goading it’s urging.
The distinction is as clear as a vegetarian choosing not to eat meat (their freedom/choice) or a vegetarian telling an angry crowd that meat eaters are murderers who are threatening their well being. Yet again the second option is designed to incite a reaction from the listener.

If Vegans typically assaulted normal people you would have a point.
I understand what you are trying to get at and why it seems so reasonable to you. There are two flaws: first people are not automons that do whatever their leaders tell them. Something may LOOK like goading when no one in fact takes it that way. In the 2008 election Obama used phrases like “get in their faces. If they bring a knife, bring a gun” when talking about how his followers should engage Republicans. By your standards Obama should have been incarcerated, but none of his followers did go around “getting in faces” and bringing guns, because his words were not taken literally. When Joe Biden tells a black audience “Republicans are gonna put ya’ll in chains” blacks do not start a civil war to free themselves from the threat of being re-enslaved. People use violent and extreme rhetoric all the time to zero violent effect.
Second, if you have the government policing this sort of thing it will never be evenly applied. The party in power and their allies will say whatever they want, and the party out of power and their friends will have every utterance scanned for signs of possible incitement to violence, because that is how party politics works.

A number of governments have had laws regulating hate speech on the books for quite a while, and they work just fine. All that’s needed is careful and clear wording.
In France the measure is taken from the angle of defamation. That means your freedom of speech has to be constrained by facts. For example, saying “all Catholics are pedophiles” would fall into the defamatory/hate speech category and can be prosecuted. Insert the word “some” into the sentence and you’re legally clear.
It’s a good structure because what it stops is xenophobic propaganda (in general.)
Spain’s article 510 is more specific. It prohibits: the incitement to hatred, hostility, discrimination or violence “against any group or its members” for reasons of racism, anti-semitism or other related to ideology, religion or beliefs, family situation, membership of an ethnic group, race or nation, national origin , gender, sexual orientation or identity, illness or disability.
In both countries there are no cases I’ve heard of of anyone but extremists being successfully prosecuted.
In regards to your examples, I’m quite sure a judge would be capable of distinguishing colourful language from speech designed to incite discrimination.

The French example looks more commonsense than the Spanish since it can refer back to a fact and not a feeling, and does not put investigators in the position of preforming exegesis on speech.
There is no such thing as activist and partisan judges? Even if the judges are blameless, activists and ideologues can harass by simply filing a lawsuit that takes time and money to resolve.
Here is another thought: doubt that violence is as spontaneous as is commonly thought. There is this idea for example that you can’t insult Islam because Arabs will spontaneously start rioting and killing people, as if they had no free will and everything they do is a reaction to something a white person or Imam says. I think that is false: the murders and riots are organised and intentional political acts. The same can be said for the political riots we have been having in the U.S. They are planned.

I agree, the French version is better. It’s also easy to implement.
There are judges with their political views, but not to the same degree as in America. And there are some differences in the legal system that minimize the risks. For example (depending on the case) you may get a panel of 3 judges. It’s also the case here that a judge isn’t just arbitrating between two parties. He’s given the responsibility of being devil’s advocate. He’s expected to (aggressively) challenge both parties presenting their cases. It’s good because it means lawyers can’t really get away with tricks or play the system in the way they seem to do in the US.

So Canizares was essentially correct? After all, the thing I suspect he is basically afraid of is the church not being allowed to teach and practice the faith because of the big mean “Imperio”. That, at least, is the fear among some bishops here in the U.S, that catholic institutions will be forced by the state to teach something the church believes is false.
The law will be what it will be. If the fears of those bishops come to pass some Catholics will pucker up and kiss the ass of the government. Others will disobey the law to be true to their faith and suffer the consequences, much to your pleasure I’m sure.

Well, Catholic leadership got over the fear of not being able to sanctify slavery, and got over the fear of women voting. They even got over the fear of not being able to teach the world did not orbit the sun. I’m sure they’ll get over the fear of not being privileged to teach blatant bigotry contrary to the law. Still, quite a way to go on all kinds of equality issues but hey, one step per century is better than none, am I right?

Or do you think Catholics have to draw the line when it comes to bigotry because, hey, demons have to have some useful role to play? .

So we have established that rather than the traditional freedoms of religion and association you want a more authoritarian government to punish people with ideas you dislike. The need for authoritarianism and a fetish for punishing perceived enemies is common among ideologues.

Ideas? No, people can think whatever they like. The line, as defined by law, is publicly promoting ideas that degrade/threaten/insult fellow citizens- citizens who have a right to lead their lives as they choose. Governments have the obligation to enact legislation that protects all of its citizens. To design a system where people can best coexist.

A yes, the ‘free speech’ and ‘freedom of religion’ arguments. I want to promote bigotry and be able to discriminate against real people in real life to real harm for my religious reasons and if you try to constrain me from doing this then you are attacking these principles.

Am I really? Do I really need to explain that the rights the religious are infringing upon on those same ones they expect for themselves? Really, dpmonohan? Are you really that poor a thinker? Consider the evidence…

This argument you present is considered a good and powerful argument only when applied on their behalf by the religious apologentsia (and then only for advancing their own privilege but never any contrary and conflicting religious privilege), aided as usual by claiming those against respecting the religious ‘right’ to exercise bigotry must be doing so not for good reasons, not for equality rights, not for civil respect of the Other, but because of some sinister motivation, that they must against religious bigotry (and not just bigotry or misogyny or group discrimination in general) because they are anti-theist zealots and militant atheists and intolerant human secularists. You barely do a passable job simply claiming me to be an ideologue and authoritarian (read closet fascist) supporter. Come on… surely you can do better than that. After all, you’ve got a bigoted, misogynistic, and discriminatory criminal religious organization to protect here! You have to demonize reasonable and responsible opposition. You have a lot of work before you.

I asked if the church should be able to preach its doctrine and run its institutions accordingly. That is freedom of speech and religion. You are against that.
The reason you give is some mystical respect for THE LAW, which apparently is the final word in human behavior and which shall not be questioned, at least when it lines up with your opinion. That is authoritarian and, frankly, adolescent.
It is not demonization to call someone an ideologue when he spews as much hateful and extremist rhetoric as you do. In fact it is quite restrained. Your complaints about Canizares’ histrionic rhetoric are a pot calling a kettle black.

But in essence what you’re supporting is the right to slander. The right to disseminate falsehoods. That’s not really about freedom of speech. It’s the freedom to politically manipulate groups and pit them against each other.

Among the many ethical teachings of the church the statement that homosexual acts are objectively sinful may or may not be false, but it is a philosophical and ethical question not one of material fact. It says nothing about the individual and his subjective state. So it can’t really be said to be disseminating falsehood or slander. It is not a political statement.
Now, Canizares’ histrionics seem to fall into the realm of political speech: there is a big mean group of activists who are attacking civilization. Is this pitting people against each other? I suppose, but it is what politicians and activists do. No other public figure in Spain complains about the opposition and says they are trying to ruin everything?

That was good wording. Yes, whether something is sinful or not is entirely a matter for religions. They can say whatever they want about religious tenets. Ethics and morality, on the other hand, don’t belong to any religion.
Where the cardinal set himself up for trouble was in how he structured his statement. He begins by saying Catholics and “the family” are under attack. He then blames gays and people who support gender equality. He then makes the unusual plea that Catholics break laws based on gender equality. It’s a somewhat incoherent rant, which will probably be his saving grace. But the real issue is LGBT people didn’t set themselves up as the church’s opposition. It was very much the other way around.

I think the next question is: what is the Cardinal afraid of? You point out loss of influence, which is likely true. The desire for influence is a natural human temptation.
Looking at recent events here in the U.S since the establishment of gay marriage there have been some sad events. Eg, a 70 year old florist gets sued because she does not want to make flowers for a gay wedding. The men doing the suing have incomes in the range of five or six times what a florist makes. Gay activists go online to give her business bad reviews. This is not an attempt at justice, this is an attempt to financially ruin a relatively poor person. The judge decides for the plaintiffs.
Now that is one case out of a mere handful. The question is whether this sort of thing is just a temporary overreach or a sign of things to come.
In that sort of an environment, (understanding that your government thinks you are a bigot) a bishop would naturally ask himself how long before some bureaucrat or judge starts dictating who he can hire as a teacher at the the high school, or telling him who can adopt orphans in his care, or whether he is allowed to keep boys out of the girl’s bathroom at the parish school, etc.

You can’t be seriously proposing the baker/florist issue as a “real thing”. I have no doubt you’ll agree with me that in those cases, both sides, both service offerer and service purchaser are professional Master-Baiters 😀
They want their 15 minutes, and that’s about it. You know how I know this? I’m a gay guy who, much of the time, works with and for the Catholic hierarchy. So tell me, should they not hire me or should I refuse to work with them?
It’s nonsense. I enjoy my work and they’re content with the quality of my work. If Cardinal Canizares himself called me tonight to ask me to authenticate a piece of art, assist with recommending a restorer or a purchase/sale- I wouldn’t dream of saying no. It wouldn’t cross my mind. My work ethic is I do my job, period. I do my job. My job isn’t to scrutinize the Cardinal’s statements or opinions- or his private life; it is no more and no less than being a specialist in a certain type of art made during a certain period of time. And I will do my job whatever the circumstances, because it’s my job.
Is your question if I think people shouldn’t do their jobs?

I hope you are right about the master baiters. Of course you should do your job and of course your private life is of no concern to your clients.
My point is that there are some vindictive and illiberal elements on your side and I think this is what someone like Canizares is afraid of. I find it is useful to ask not just why someone is wrong about something, but to ask what their fears are, or to put it more positively, what things are they, in their mind, trying to defend.

The last thing we should do is be held hostage by the Master-Baiters. Any of them.
Having hired a whole lot of caterers and venues in my lifetime, I know they can refuse service without any explanation other than “Sorry, that doesn’t fit with our schedule.”
And that’s where it all goes pear-shaped. You get one idiot on one side saying “I don’t like who you are”, and then another idiot saying, “You don’t like who I am so I want to insist on paying for your services.”
Twilight zone.
No one in that equation deserves prizes. If I were a judge in one of those cases I’d make both parties pick up trash on the side of the road instead of wasting tax payer money on their power trips. Not the power trips of one party. There are power trips going on on both sides in those stories.

I asked if the church should be able to preach its doctrine and run its institutions accordingly.

Not if it’s legally discriminatory.

That is freedom of speech and religion.

No, it’s not.

You are against that

I am against institutions being privileged to be exempt from it.

The reason you give is some mystical respect for THE LAW, which apparently is the final word in human behavior and which shall not be questioned, at least when it lines up with your opinion.

No, the reason I give is because civil rights are not a cover for disregarding civil rights. You seem to have a problem understanding that.

That is authoritarian and, frankly, adolescent.

It would be if it were true. You seem to have difficulty differentiating your opinion from what is the case and seem okay with continuing to have this difficulty.

It is not demonization to call someone an ideologue when he spews as much hateful and extremist rhetoric as you do.

I said you were being too restrained by calling me only an ideologue and authoritarian and that you needed to use stronger language to demonize me in order to stay true to this well-trod apologetic form. Now, labeling my comments ‘hateful’ and ‘extremist rhetoric’ is better but calling them such does not mean they are. Again, you have shown great difficulty differentiating your opinions from what is the case. You need to work on that.

In fact it is quite restrained.

Oh, I agree. You are the model of restraint in the Catholic apologentsia. Not as effective to the ignorant and the credulous target audience, mind you, but still you make the effort and that’s got to count for brownie points at the Pearly Gates, mustn’t it?

Your complaints about Canizares’ histrionic rhetoric are a pot calling a kettle black.

No, because I’m not exercising bigotry and discrimination against people. My target is the rotten institution and the questionable character of those who try to defend it. I am offering legitimate and accurate criticism (why it’s a rotten institution) which, to no one’s surprise, you fail to differentiate from your opinion to what is the case.

So because you can’t see it, let me offer you an observation: I’m seeing a problematic pattern here, dpmonahan, and it resides with you. You really should fix that.

Whatever. If you want to call yourself a fascist fine, I find it is a useless term without any real content. We’ve established that you want to bring the power of the state to bear on your ideological opponents, but it is a common human trait not only found among brownshirts.
I honestly don’t get this thing about fact and opinion. I take it to mean your opinions align perfectly with facts and mine do not or something, which is not much of an argument.
As for my apologetics not being effective, that is because I’m not an apologist. I’m not trying to convince anyone of the Truth of Catholicism, I don’t think people are really moved by argument about that sort of thing. I’m mostly killing time. At best I’m learning how others think, maybe sharpening my own ideas. I can’t say you’ve been helpful.

Have you heard of a doctor called Mariano Sigman? An Argentinian neuroscientist who wrote a book called the Secret Life of the Mind. Absolutely fascinating. He explains tribalism from evolution to the modern day and even the effect that has on the legal system. Stepping outside of that paradigm is the exception rather than the norm. I think DP is interested in investigating thinking patterns, methods and approaches. That’s *the* birth of independent thinking.

I would love to read his book but it doesn’t appear to be in English (yet). If D really was interested in investigating thinking patterns, methods and approaches, then he’s not very good at it when it comes to himself (but who of us are, eh?). That he is willing to first make excuses for the blatant bigotry and demonization by many in leadership positions in the Church demonstrates a very clear motive… a motive that is the result of a thinking pattern called religious apologetics and one that cares nothing about the bigotry itself when it’s of the Catholic kind and everything to do with defending the indefensible – indefensible if certain Catholic values were indeed true as advertized for their claim to moral spokesmanship. DP can’t even get basic reciprocity down. What hope is there that he can think independently at all? None… as far as he has demonstrated here.

This is confusing: the complaint above was that the church was seeking to deny civil rights to gays qua gays. I said not civil rights in general, just gay marriage for reasons that should be understandable even if you don’t agree. Now it seems you are complaining about a tertium quid, the church cozying up to various strongmen who violated civil rights of political enemies, quite wicked of course but that it is not the same thing.
I’m trying to be rational. I do have a pre-rational commitment to the creed and faith in the sacraments but I am not much of a catholic tribalist. I certainly don’t have any loyalty to an individual bishop’s opinions or school of theology.

Again, that’s dishonest. The church doesn’t/didn’t just oppose gay marriage. The Catholic church opposed the citizenship and the humanity of LGBT people as a whole. The gay marriage debate is incredibly recent and was simply where the battle moved to after society recognized sexual orientation had no impact and was not a causal factor in other human behaviours that could be deemed harmful.

“The Catholic church opposed the citizenship and the humanity of LGBT people as a whole.”
I’m sorry, what does that even mean? You’ve just strung some slogans together without any recognizable content – at least not recognizable to me. How are gays “not human” in church doctrine? How are they “not citizens”?

According to a Doctrine of the Faith’s letter to bishops: (Homosexuality) “is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

That means that gays who don’t deny their sexuality fall into the category of of practitioners are evil and disordered. Society deals with such people in two ways: exclusion or incarceration. So that sort of attack is an attack of the personal autonomy and citizenship of LGBT individuals. That’s not slogans strung together.

Are you sure you want to double down on this positioning? There’s something that doesn’t sit right- not least of which is I didn’t compare Jews to Gays- I simply explained the similarity of the mechanics of “Othering” and its consequences.
By saying “Christian Countries”, you’re attempting to “other-ize” me; the problem is you’re not more of a citizen than me. My sexuality has no bearing on how much I can and do contribute to society- and implying it does is what is silly.

Never trust a British rag to report accurately on Roman Catholics. Hating Catholicsim is part of the English national myth since the Reformation.http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081222_curia-romana.html
The horribly offensive things the Pope said:
“Our faith in creation is the ultimate basis of our responsibility for the earth. The earth is not simply our property, which we can exploit according to our interests and desires. Rather, it is a gift of the Creator, who designed its innate order and has thus given us guidelines which we, as stewards of his creation, need to respect. The fact that the earth and the cosmos mirror the Creator Spirit also means that their rational structures which, beyond their mathematical order, become almost tangible in scientific experimentation, also have an inherent ethical orientation.
Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian creed, the Church cannot and must not limit herself to passing on to the faithful the message of salvation alone. She has a responsibility towards creation, and must also publicly assert this responsibility. In so doing, she must not only defend earth, water and air as gifts of creation belonging to all. She must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood.
If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work.
What is often expressed and understood by the term “gender” ultimately ends up being man’s attempt at self-emancipation from creation and the Creator. Man wants to be his own master, and alone – always and exclusively – to determine everything that concerns him. Yet in this way he lives in opposition to the truth, in opposition to the Creator Spirit.”
Hardly “gays are destroying the world and must be stopped.” When Ratzinger uses language like ‘destruction of man’ he is talking about things that damage human flourishing, I think he borrows that from Wojtyla who spoke that way a lot.
Now, of course your sexual preference is unrelated to you ability to have a constructive role in society, your sexual life is private, not public. Of course you are just as much a citizen as I, albeit in different countries. I never meant to imply anything different.

Are you implying Ratzinger was not anti-gay?
Consider this “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

No, the logic goes like this:
-Behaviour X is evil
-People who practice behaviour X are practitioners of evil

By using that label in those terms the Catholic church is inviting its followers to exclude and marginalize gay people. And in doing so they deny the *right* to freedom, autonomy and citizenship of gay individuals. It’s quite simple and straightforward.

Except real catholic teaching on sin goes something like this:
-Behavior X is objectively evil.
-Practitioners of behavior X may or may not be sinning, with more or less gravity, depending on their subjective conditions.
-In any case we invite practitioners of behavior X to repent.
Catholic teaching on politics and law is less developed, but it would seem to be something like this: whether behavior X should be a subject of legislation comes down to its impact on the common good and the prudent judgement of the proper authorities. I think it was St Augustine who used to argue that sexual sins should not be a matter of law, because enforcement would cause more evils than it would solve, but I can’t recall the citation.

Now, concerning marginalization: it is true that in a conservative christian culture homosexual relationships will be marginalized, i.e. kept private, not public, not held up as being the norm. This often creates other problems, it can open people up to bullying or blackmail, which no one deserves, but that varies from culture to culture.

Let’s take your formula:
-Behavior X is objectively evil.
-Practitioners of behavior X may or may not be sinning, with more or less gravity, depending on their subjective conditions.
-In any case we invite practitioners of behavior X to repent.

The whole thing is problematic because the justification for behaviour X being “evil” is arbitrary. It’s neither based in fact nor science. That means it’s evil because they *feel like it*.
And the invitation to repent is even more problematic. The Catholic church has no authority over free citizens. That sort of invitation implies they’re in a position of ownership of truth, which they’re not.

An idea like personal sin is a whole different philosophical conversation I guess.
I understand this topic is probably personal to you while it is quite impersonal to me. I’m not looking to bring you around to The Great Catholic Truth and I’m not doing battle with El Imperio Gay.
I think your fear (if I can use the term) of church teaching is in some way’s rational, in some ways not. I also think Cardinal Canizares’ fear is in some ways rational, in some ways not.

I have no fear of church teaching- nor of Catholics in general. I still regularly work with churches. Just last month I organized the sale of a Spanish Holy Infant to a church in Massachusetts. My issue is with the interference of *any* church with the lives of those who do not subscribe to their ideology. Singling out and labelling a whole collective of people as they do is a dangerous affair. Fortunately much less dangerous today than it used to be because most people aren’t interested in the Cardinal’s brand of fire and brimstone.

What I suspect the cardinal mostly fears, by now, is being forbidden to run charities, schools and hospitals as he sees fit. At least that is the fear here in the United States. In Boston, for example, Catholic Charities stopped doing adoptions because the state ordered them to give children to gay couples.
I live in Massachusetts, what church if you can say?

In Spain it’s a bit more complex. Keep in mind the Cardinal was a priest during the Franco regime. That means he operated within Nacionalcatolicismo. Priests in small towns were the eyes and ears of the regime. People higher up had great influence in society. Keep in mind Franco made Josemaria Escriva Marquis of Peralta…
The transition into not having the same power has not been embraced with glee.

And isn’t that exactly what this pope Francis did by visiting and lending religious credence to Kim Davis, pronouncing we must live and work – denying public service based on our personal bigotry, that is to say, to exclude and marginalize the Other based on our religious beliefs about them (aka the Catholic ‘conscience’) – according to our bigoted views?

Being told that one does not own one’s self but is owned by another, another that a self-appointed witch doctor just so happens to represent and has this list of rules and regulations, is so patently stupid and immature and pernicious in effect that it’s truly a marvel that otherwise intelligent adults can stoop to such gullibility and need why this is so to be explained to them. That’s the real miracle of Catholic religious belief: the stupification of the mind. And it takes a lot of work for the apologentsia to somehow turn this totalitarian demand for submission to be so contorted into a seeming virtue worthy of respect, worthy of having a voice at a table of adult conversation about real issues in the real world involving real people, as if this slavish denial of autonomy and willingness to enslave one’s self to a dogmatic religious dictatorship is what issues about human flourishing really requires.

Umm… no. Good reasons and evidence-based results serve us much better to this end. But human flourishing has never been the goal of the Catholic Church: undeserved authority is and always shall be.

And yes, you did intend to suggest that the threats to humanity the Gay Empire brought to bear were in fact revealed by the critical commentary this religious wingnut received, and by doing so suggested without actually stating as much that your sympathies (certainly, your excuses) lay with those brave Catholics who dared stand against this global gay agenda and spoke out against it, suggesting your sympathies were with those Catholic wingnuts in positions of leadership who claimed demonic possession behind it, claimed a dire threat to the family, a dire threat to the planet, a dire threat to humanity itself.

What is of note is that you do not condemn this Catholic bigotry but are quite willing to spend time and effort defending it.

The Catholic Church is a vile and reprehensible criminal organization that promotes bigotry and intolerance towards real people in real life to real effect every day. Obedience to this doctrine is a demonstration of a lack of moral and ethical responsibility to your fellow human and a capitulation of personal integrity.

Cardinal Burke, I kid you not, was so worried the Pope would soften his condemnation of sexual minorities that the pope threw him out of Rome and banished him to Malta. Hey Cardinal Burke: pot-kettle-black

The global leadership for the denigration and persecution of sexual minorities is the Roman Catholic Church. They are aided and abetted by other religions, but the leadership, the top of the pyramid, IS Catholic.